studiot

No the change is not quite arbitrary. Here is a potted history of pusating charge spheres and other non radiating distributions, originally introduced by Ehrenfest. https://skullsinthestars.com/2008/04/19/invisibility-physics-acceleration-without-radiation-part-i/ Note these are not pulsars With these, the effects observed are due to rotation. Yes there has been discussion on other forums in the last couple of years. Google has various images of the physics of the explanation, going back to 'all' will find the PhysicsForums and Stack discussions https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=EM+radiation+from+pulsating+charged+sphere&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi01Kv_udHwAhUhtHEKHV5uAx0Q_AUoAXoECAEQAw

Apologies, something seems to have gone wrong with the Math tags In my last post, the second equation should read [math]g = \frac{{force}}{{mass}} = \frac{{mass*acceleration}}{{mass}} = acceleration[/math]

Thank you for that clear answer. I agree that the dimensions (in metric) of volume are m3. So you are very reasonably equating space with volume. One of our doctoral members is fond of doing this. Please forgive me for wanting to start with some basics which we can all agree on, before proceeding to your more exotic assertions. I asked for two reasons. Firstly you enjoined me to read your introductory pdf. There you state your priciple that somehow swops or interchanges volume and mass as your breakthrough insight. Is this also the basis for you suggesting ? I commented that gravitational flux is an example of Gauss' Flux Law and you seem to agree with that. Only it is not necessary to integrate over a closed surface. That is only when you can equate the total to a finite value. The total field (integral) passing through a given surface, closed or not, will always give you the flux, if you can evaluate it. However I did comment that for the field lines (flux) to pass through that surface there must be additional space on both sides of it. A surface is two dimensional and has units m2. We are dealing with three dimensional space with units of m3, as already noted. Now I also said So I think we agree on the definition of flux, ΦG as ΦG=∫Sg.dA But wait, g=Forcemass=mass∗accelerationmass=acceleration So we have a mass over mass cancelling situation Please note that there are lots of different symbols and anmes about for some of these terms so I have used the Wikipedia symbols that are available to everyone. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_equations_in_gravitation You download images by drag and drop (not recommended) or clicking on the 'choose files' as indicated in the image below. This will download images (jpg is best, I use greyscale where possible to save size) to thumbnails at the bottom of your input text. Click in the text to place the cursor where you want to place the image and then click on the thumbnail. The other outlined thing are the symbols for superscript and subscript in the toolbar at the top. These are really useful as you can create near scientific notation with these plus a couple of characters by using charmap.exe (part of Windows) to find the hidden characters availble from your font sets. Much easier than Latex, (you need to use MathML here) . Tex can be accessed by going to an online editor to assemble your maths and then copy pasting from there. https://www.codecogs.com/latex/eqneditor.php?latex or http://www.sciweavers.org/free-online-latex-equation-editor

What don't you understand about my question? I only asked one simple one, the rest was some background which should be easily accessible to someone with So to repeat my simple question You are the one who introduced 'dimensions', although you actually offered units.

Yes dimensional analyis is a very hand tool. I don't think that is the way Gauss' Law works, in particular your conclusion is drawn from an end result in which two quantities appear in the numerator and denominator of the defining fraction and therefore cancel. I think you should start with this statement Again, yes I agree it is an important and fundamental question so let us ask it What are the dimensions of space ? Remember that gravitational flux is defined in terms of a gaussian surface and requires 'space' either side of it.

You have not given details the object to be detected, and if it is the only object on the floor. Perhaps you should investigate graphics tablets, They can detect the presence or absence of the stylus pen by various different technologies. But a floor sized version could be quite expensive. https://www.amazon.co.uk/Huion-Graphics-Drawing-Tablet-Board/dp/B00TB0TTAC/ref=asc_df_B00TB0TTAC/?tag=googshopuk-21&linkCode=df0&hvadid=310855849579&hvpos=&hvnetw=g&hvrand=10556702321285004752&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=&hvdev=c&hvdvcmdl=&hvlocint=&hvlocphy=1007149&hvtargid=pla-379048174962&psc=1

Yes you are right, I thought about it after I shut down and went out, but it was too late then and I was rushing.

Exactly. Mixtures have a lower boiling / melting point than any pure substance they are mixed from.

I am wondering if you cooking technique has something to do with it. Although I would not waste the higher priced maris piper on roasties, occasionally we have one or two to use up and they go in with the standard 'english whites' and seem to come out the same when roasted together. Traditionally, of course, King Edwards are the premium roasting spud. In any event, I wonder if you are not using perhaps too much oil ? Oil has a lower BP/MP than traditional fat so may not let the surface of the spud reach the higher temperature that drier cooking or deep frying would. Really ? Please explain how this works.

There are lots of ways to achieve a crisp exterior to potatoes when cooking them. Results depend upon the variety, age and condition of the tuber, including its water content. If you want good results with shallow frying you are best to parboil or par microwave them first. The European method of making chips uses this method for both deep and shallow frying. I think the most important thing is that the final operation should be intense heating of the potato whether roasting, baking or frying. If you obtain the crisp external coating too soon in the cooking sequence you will either end up with a part cooked interior or have to turn the heat down and I find the crisp exterior goes soft - You often find this in restaurents that have kept roast potatoes warm (hot) too long. It should be noted that it is possible to produce the crisp exterior even if the potatoes are floating in water (gravy), this is done in the traditional Lancashire hotpot dish for instance. I find that 'scallops' are thus the best shape for shallow frying. Some commercial chips (fries) are made from extruded precooked and reconstituted potato. On the issue of supermarket supply, I find it is always worth removing vegetables from their plastic bags (even the perforated bags) as soon as possible as the seat in the bags initiating deterioration. Carrots seem particularly prone to this and also some supermarkets seem to treat them particularly harshly so they start going black on the outside within a day or two. It should be noted that the washing process also involves som form of mechanical scrubbing.

nice +1

The point is that one of Tesla's false claims relates directly to your proposition. What makes you think space has no properties ? This is just false, and Tesla of all poeple as an electrical engineer should have known better. Empty or free space has a measurable electromagnetic impedance of about 377 Ohms.

+1

Hello Timothy, I can see you have much work to do explaining your ideas since you are using different definitions for common scientific words from (the rest of) the scientific community. Radical though he may have been Einstein did not do this. In particular do you actually know what the scientific definitions of 'fractal' and 'dimension' are ? You state "Einstein's assumption of a static 3 dimensional space....." Did you know that significant investigation into the mathematics and science of multi dimensional space was started before Einstein and received an impetus when his theory of special relativity came out ? In particular various multidimensional spaces were studied intensively with the result that 2 dimensions are insufficient, 4 and more dimensions offer additional phenomenon that are not observed leaving only 3 dimensional space as being the appropriate number. Significant Mathematical material was developed by Sommerville, Eddington, Hausdorf, Abbot amongst others at this time and the work has continued to this day because it is not yet 'finished' - if it ever will be. It is worth noting that modern (and slightly earlier) mathematicians have even added significantly to Euclid's massive epic. We can discuss these comments if you like, which could save you a lot of heartache in the future. I am sorry to be so negative as you appear sincere in your efforts.

We would need sufficient information to begin to answer this question. Impedance ? Acoustic impedance ? Radiation impedance? Electromagnetic impedance ? Impedance between the surface and something else ? Yes it may be possible to detect an intervening object depending upon the details ( a lot more of them) . Capacitive coupling comes to mind. Over to you.

You have yet to demonstrate there will be a freeze - thaw.

Since this is worrying you. Here is something to think about. Actually, no this is not possible. It is not possible becasue you have a length (and width and height) in space. You are not a point. Try to imagaine what would happen if you were a sausage and you said the sausage moves 3 units North, the two units West. Where is the sausage now ? Now ask the same question if you cut a slice from the middle of the sausage and moved it those idatances where is it now ? This second operation are what most people mean by time-travel, which is not the equivalent of space travel. Why not ?

Maxwell, Stokes and others worked all this out in great detail in the early to mid 1800s. But they rejected these mechanical models is unsatisfactory for a variety of reasons, and finally devised experiments to disporove aether models once and for all. How much less satisfactory do you think we now find them 150 years alter, armed with our greater knowledge and many, more refined experiments ?

Well you should not doubt it. Tensional forces from any source always aid the degradation due to chemical weathering, for instance by causing joints which allow the acid solvents to penetrate deeply into the body of the rock. Anyway as you say, your observations were side observations, and my comments were equally quick responses. I propose to do some reading up on the mechanical models I dubbed interesting and will report back when I have found more out.

Indeed I am just adding to my own observation that engineering predated science by perhaps thousands of years. Noelithic engineers had no science.

I'm glad you are beginning to do some thinking about it. Because your ice/water interface must have moved on many metres in that one second, depending upon the interface speed you take. If this does not happen then you will not have the required water for the hydroturbine to operate. It cannot do so in a slush. Also if you have used all the solar energy in your 100m strip for thawing the ice, how are you going to find the power to pump stuff around ? Finally all this area of solar collector, pipeline, pumps, controls, turbines, output electricl gear and storage must weigh millions of tonnes. How are you going to get it all there ?

Yes I wondered about some of the wording in the available extracts. For instance the idea of plates 'drifting' around the globe harps back to the theory of continental drift. As regards to 'damage', that may not be the best word but deformation does not tell the whole story either. Crustal (and other) rocks can and do continually degrade by various natural processes as well as specific event such as plate boundary activity.

What known science did the first neolithic engineer to build a clapper bridge 'apply' ?

No ridicule, but I'm pretty sure I didn't say your second line as you have rephrased it. I'm also pretty sure you fully understand the difference between power and energy. So what I said was that the solar energy incident on that area over a period of one second was eactly the amount you need to thaw a cubic metre of ice, if you could collect all of it and add it all to that ice. I was temporarily ignoring the inefficiencies of collection, distribution, storage etc and simply asking how you would transfer that amount of energy into a block of ice in one second, since you would need to do the same again with the next block of ice in the next second and so on. Given my own knowledge of this sort of thing from deicing of bridge structures I am doubting the practicality of that operation.

You could make an argument the other way round since engineering is by far the older discipline. In other words scientists are a particular type of engineer. However engineers sometimes 'do' science - when they want to find or try something out. Equally scientists sometimes do engineering when they want a particular piece of apparatus that does not already exist. When I cook the dinner I act as a chef not a scientist or an engineer. Which simply prooves that humans are more versatile than artificial categorisation.